Australopithecus sediba—no human ancestor

New alleged hominid ignites debate, but is no missing link

Published: 15 April 2010(GMT+10)

Image news.com.au

Photo of one of the two Australopithecus sediba fossils. Note the general similarity to other
australopiths.

Australopithecus sediba emerged a few days ago out of an obviously
coordinated propaganda campaign or, for those less cynically inclined, a media
frenzy. Allegedly nearly two million years old, Australopithecus sediba
was hailed by some media outlets as the “Missing link found in ascent of man”,
which experts say “could rewrite the story of human evolution”.1 If it sounds like you have
heard these headlines before, you probably have. The announcement of missing
links or apemen that “rewrite the story of human evolution” is the
evolutionist’s version of the movie Groundhog Day.

In reading comments as to what this fossil is supposed to represent to
creationists, one can be amused or bemused. A few days before the details of the
discovery were released, when next to nothing about the fossils was known
publicly, one reader commented: “One more transitional nail in the creationist
coffin … fervent fanatics that deny evolution will find this exceptionally
distressing”.2 I will
try and keep the diazepam3
handy whilst writing this, although I doubt somehow that I will be the one
needing to use it.

The announcement of missing links or apemen that rewrite the story of human
evolution is the evolutionist’s version of the movie Groundhog Day.

One would imagine that careful analysis of the bones would be carried out before
determining that the fossils were supposedly hominids. Think again! Discovered
in cave deposits at Malapa, close to Johannesburg, South Africa, apparently only
a quick on-the-spot look at a clavicle (collarbone) sticking out of a rock
convinced Lee Berger, the main author of the study, that it was a hominid.4 It is very unlikely anyone
could make such a quick judgment reliably, particularly as from “a comparative
point of view the clavicle is one of the most poorly studied bones in the body.”5 Rather, it illustrates
that this whole issue concerns preconceived notions about our origins. Consider
the training and role of physical anthropologists (also known as human
paleontologists or paleoanthropologists):

“Their background training is in skeletal and dental (tooth) anatomy and
paleontology, and they are grounded in evolutionary theory. Their principal task
is to discern the proper place for newly discovered fossils within an
ever-expanding array of fossils already assigned to human evolution. Prehistoric
archaeologists reconstruct past cultures, and physical anthropologists
reconstruct evolutionary relationships of past populations.”6

The above statement indicates the total indoctrination of physical
anthropologists into evolution. In fact, it is hard to see, according to the
above definition, how anyone could be a paleoanthropologist without also being
an evolutionist. It is obvious that such people are going to interpret all
fossil evidence within the evolutionary paradigm, and are going to be completely
biased against any other interpretation of human origins. Given this state of
affairs there is a definite need for an alternative assessment of the fossil
evidence that allegedly supports the notion of human evolution—one that is free
from evolutionary bias. This is not to say that an alternative assessment of the
fossil evidence will be an unbiased presentation, but that it will be a bias
based on a different perspective.

Reading some of the comments attributed to evolutionary experts, one quickly
gets the sense that there is disagreement over what type of hominid the
Australopithecus sediba fossils represent, in particular whether it belongs
in the genus Homo or Australopithecus, and also what alleged
role it had in human evolution. It also becomes clear that Lee Berger does not
exactly endear himself to many of his fellow paleoanthropologists, some of whom
have made some rather unflattering comments about him. In an article in The
Weekend Australian national chief correspondent Hedley Thomas commented:

“Renowned University of California paleoanthropologist Tim White savaged Berger
on the release of his subsequent book, The Official Field Guide to the
Cradle of Humankind, calling it ‘in many ways worse than useless, given the
astonishing density of errors and misleading statements’. He added that it
showed a disturbing ‘pattern of fabrication’.

White wrote in the South African Journal of Science. ‘Berger’s rise to
prominence signals a new era: one of smoke and mirrors, in which style triumphs
over substance. In his short career, Berger has not in fact found very much but
shows a remarkable ability to inject himself, via funding and publicity, into
discoveries made by others.’ In case anyone missed the point, White branded
Berger an enthusiastically ambitious but inexperienced American ‘more fascinated
with fame and fortune than with serious science’”.7

In the world of paleoanthropology, Tim White is definitely no lightweight8, so in some respects one
can have sympathy for Berger in being the target of such criticism, yet it makes
one also feel warier than usual about this particular find.

The fossil find consists of a nearly complete skull and a partial postcranial
skeleton of a juvenile male (MH1), estimated to be 11 to 12 years old, as well
as maxillary (upper) teeth, a partial mandible (lower jaw), and a partial
postcranial skeleton9 of
an adult female (MH2).10,11 Bones from at least two
other individuals have also been found, including an infant and adult female,
but these finds have yet to be published.12 The authors of the study assigned the fossils
to the genus Australopithecus, and believe that the “age and overall
morphology of Au. sediba imply that it most likely descended from
Au. africanus, and appears more derived toward Homo than do
Au. afarensis, Au. garhi, and Au. africanus.”13

It should be pointed out that creationists regard all ‘australopiths’ as extinct
ape-like creatures that had nothing to do with human evolution.14 Evolutionists have
created many more genera of alleged hominids outside the genus Homo in
addition to the original genus Australopithecus, and all these supposed
hominids are sometimes informally referred to as ‘australopiths’, regardless of
the genus they have been placed in.15 Hence, collectively they are referred to as
australopiths, but when talking more specifically, the genus and/or species name
is used. The term ‘australopithecine’ refers specifically to members of the
genus Australopithecus.

There are certainly good reasons why Australopithecus sediba belongs in
the genus Australopithecus, and not in the genus Homo. Its
estimated cranial capacity of 420 cm3 is in the ape/australopithecine
range, as is the maximum estimated height of 1.3 meters, as well as the
relatively long arms.16
As reported by Kate Wong, Fred Spoor “observes that whereas it has
Australopithecus-like brain size and molar shape, it calls to mind Homo
in its brain case shape and molar size.”17 Wong also mentions the flatter face of
Australopithecus sediba as being a characteristic of Homo.17
In his weblog John Hawks points out similarities between the
Australopithecus sediba cranium and that of Australopithecus africanus
crania (Sts 71 and Sts 52) from Sterkfontein, and states that “it’s my
impression that the postcrania of the Malapa skeletons fit within A.
africanus.”18

The above contrary opinions may well be resolved if Australopithecus sediba
is a small-brained specimen of the type evolutionists have often classified as
Homo habilis. (This is commonly regarded as an invalid or ‘phantom’
taxon19 whose members
by and large should be put into the genus Australopithecus) This notion
may not sit comfortably with any evolutionist scheme, but it would fit the
creationist picture well. There has always been some ambiguity surrounding the
status of some of the Homo habilis specimens, particularly as there
were few bones below the head that could be attributed unambiguously to Homo
habilis.17 Some evolutionary experts have suggested transferring
the specimens in Homo habilis to the genus Australopithecus,
whilst others have pointed out Homo erectus resemblances in some of the
fossil skulls.19 Given this, and without reliably associated
postcranial bones to help clarify the nature of Homo habilis, the
species has pretty much been in limbo, being variously described as a ‘garbage
bag’ or ‘wastebasket’, that is, a dumping ground for difficult-to-classify
fossils.19 Prior to Berger’s discovery of Australopithecus sediba,
the general evolutionary view was that the australopithecines evolved into
Homo habilis, with the latter in turn evolving into Homo erectus.
This may or may not change. From a creation point of view, if the postcranial
skeleton of Australopithecus sediba is representative of the other
specimens labeled Homo habilis, and if (as seems likely) the
postcranium of Australopithecus sediba is australopithecine-like, then
this adds weight to the notion that most of the specimens attributed to Homo
habilis were also australopithecine-type apes.20

In a newspaper article, Berger was quoted as saying that Australopithecus
sediba had “ape-like arms, primitive wrists and short but powerful curved
fingers, yet surprisingly a pelvis that is clearly evolved for walking on the
ground in very much the way we do”, and that they “could still climb trees, that
is very clear with these long arms, but they were competent walking bipeds.”21 Hence, here you have a
creature with apparently an upper body designed for climbing trees, which
implies, even from an evolutionist perspective, that this was a major feature of
its lifestyle, in line with today’s tree-dwelling apes. However, the main bone
of contention is what is considered by the authors to be the advanced (or
derived) features present in the coxal bones (os coxae) of the pelvis,
which were partially preserved, and discussed in more detail in the paper
(including an MH1 composite comparison).22 One problem with interpreting functional
aspects of features in the pelvic and lower limb bones in the australopithecines
is that there is a tendency to “assume a priori that the muscles were
in a close to human pattern”,23
and not an ape-like organization. Also, without being able to directly examine
the various coxal bones from the different alleged hominid species, it is hard
to assess the significance of the claims of “Homo-like morphology compared to
other australopithecines” for the MH1 coxal bones.13 In Michael
Balter’s commentary in Science he writes:

“But others are unconvinced by the Homo argument. The characteristics
shared by A. sediba and Homo are few and could be due to
normal variation among australopithecines or because of the boy’s juvenile
status, argues Tim White, a paleoanthropologist at the University of California,
Berkeley. These characters change as a hominin grows, and the features of a
young australopithecine could mimic those of ancient adult humans. He and
others, such as Ron Clarke of Witwatersrand, think the new fossils might
represent a late-surviving version of A. africanus [not generally
considered a human ancestor anymore] or a closely related sister species to it”.24

But others are unconvinced by the Homo argument. The characteristics
shared by A. sediba and Homo are few and could be due to normal
variation among australopithecines—Science magazine

As reported by Ker Than, anthropologist Bernard Wood’s opinion is that “A.
sediba’s arms are too long—too apelike—and the species isn’t as well
adapted for upright walking as some scientists expect the direct ancestor to the
first humans to be”.25
It should also be emphasized that even if some australopithecines, such as
Australopithecus sediba, walked upright then that is not proof they were on
their way to becoming human. According to evolutionist authority Charles Oxnard,
certain features (humeri, ankle bones, and metacarpals) of the
australopithecines “clearly differ more from humans and African apes, than do
these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.”26 He further states on
the same page that “though bipedal, it is likely that their bipedality was
mechanically different from that of humans. Though terrestrial, it is further
likely that these fossils were accomplished arborealists [i.e., suited to living
in the trees].” Creationists do not have any problem in acknowledging that some
extinct apes (australopiths) may have walked upright, although, as indicated by
Oxnard, it is doubtful that mechanically their bipedalism was like that of
humans. In fact, important research done by the evolutionist Fred Spoor, using
CAT scans on the portions of fossil skulls housing the organs of balance,
indicated that the australopithecines he studied did not walk
habitually upright.27
(Even some apes today are capable of walking upright non-habitually, i.e.
some of the time.) This contradicts the confident claims of many
evolutionists who argue from, for example, australopithecine pelvic anatomy.

Actually, a type of bipedal ability existed in other extinct apes, such as
Oreopithecus bambolii, presumably not considered a human precursor because
its evolutionary age (it supposedly lived 7 to 9 million years ago) was too
early, and because it was found in a location (in Tuscany, Italy) unsuitable as
the cradle for ‘early apemen’. According to the authors who studied the
specimen, parts of the pelvis of Oreopithecus bambolii resembled that
of Australopithecus afarensis, and its femur showed “a pronounced
diaphyseal angle combined with condyles of subequal size, similar to
Australopithecus and Homo and functionally correlated with bipedal
activities”.28
According to Henry Gee, “this creature is thought to have become bipedal
independently and was only distantly related to hominids”.29 It is difficult enough
to imagine apes evolving a form of bipedal locomotion once, let alone that it
happened independently two or more times. It seems evolution can be accommodated
to almost any scenario, and as such seems more of a belief system than science.

The final point to be made is that evolution or creation cannot be proved or
disproved based on the sorting of alleged apemen or hominid fossils, as these
are always subject to different interpretations. One reason why there are no
apemen fossils is that evolution is impossible. Yes, natural selection occurs,
and yes, mutations are also observed to happen. However, the problem for
evolutionists is that natural selection only sorts existing information; it
cannot create the information needed for new body structures. Mutations are
random, and usually detrimental to the organism. Even in the few examples where
they are beneficial, mutations still do not create the new information needed to
make microbes-to-mankind evolution possible30; rather they overwhelmingly cause a loss of
information (e.g., loss of wings on a beetle living on a windy island).

Natural selection sorting random mutations is a blind process that cannot see
into the future. Hence, it cannot affect the selection process of mutations that
would be needed ‘further down the road’ in order to get the right DNA sequences
to code for a specific gene and particularly a suite of genes (genes rarely act
in isolation). If anything, natural selection would act to eliminate any
mutations that were on their way to a new structure, as they would serve no
purpose unless functional. However, it appears that not even natural selection
can effectively rid our genomes of harmful mutations, particularly ones that are
only slightly detrimental (near neutral), and so our genome deteriorates from
generation to generation.31
Simply put, humans cannot have evolved as a species over millions of years
because there is no viable mechanism to increase information in the genome, and
because the accumulation of errors (mutations) in the genome over that
hypothetical time makes it inconceivable that it would still be functional. That
is, we would be extinct if the evolutionary scenario with its millions of years
were true.32

Wong, K., Spectacular South African skeletons reveal new
species from murky period of human evolution, 8 April 2010 (Available at
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-african-hominin-fossil, 9
April 2010). Return to text.

Hawks, J., What, if anything, is Australopithecus sediba?
8 April 2010 (Available at
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/sediba/malapa-berger-description-2010.html,
10 April 2010). Return to text.

The confusion regarding habilis was likely
contributed to by the occasional bone fragment from H. erectus (fully
human) being assigned to this ‘taxon of convenience’. See discussion by
evolutionist Dr Fred Spoor on the DVD documentary
The Image of
God. Return to text.

Spoor, F., et al., Implications of early hominid
labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature
369(6482):645–648, 23 June 1994. Spoor was at the time Professor of
Evolutionary Anatomy at University College London, UK, and joint editor of the
Journal of Human Evolution. Return to text.

Kohler, M. and Moya-Sola, S., Ape-like or hoinid-like?
The positional behavior of Oreopithecus bambolii reconsidered,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 94:11747,
1997. Return to text.

Gee, H., Return to the planet of the apes, Nature,
412:131, 2001. Return to text.

Israeli bio-informatics specialist Dr Lee Spetner has written
in his book Not By
Chance that he knows of no point mutations that increase information (specified
complexity) but would not be surprised if in a complex world, there might be a
handful eventually identified that do add a tiny bit of information by chance.
But his point is that for the neo-Darwinian theory to have any credibility, it
would require us to easily be able to identify hundreds of
information-gaining mutations out of the multiplied thousands occurring all the
time. Return to text.

“One little bit doesn’t make a difference.” It’s a good job CMI didn’t think like that. We had to start somewhere producing information, one word and one article at a time. Similarly, please don’t think your small donation doesn’t help. They can add together to bring a shower of blessings. Support this site

Comments closed

A reader’s comment

bruce W.,Australia, 14 July 2012

Thanks Peter for a helpful article. If one starts with a creationist framework, new finds seem to generally readily fit categories of human or not human. When I first looked at a homo erectus skeleton it was clearly human- indistinguishable from the neck down from modern skeletons of humans(I am a doctor). If Berger had looked at a long set of arms on A. sediba with a creationist framework, he could have saved himself a lot of trouble and been fairly sure it wasn't from the genus Homo straight away.